Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-425"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.15.3-425"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Nisticò, for his thorough and excellent report, and for his open-mindedness and willingness to cooperate with the shadow rapporteurs.
This directive is essential. For the first time, it lays down in Community legislation quality and safety standards for blood products, whether they are intended for transfusions or as starting materials for medicinal products. I should also say that it also provides for the free movement of donors and blood products within the Union. I regard the proposal as being both ambitious and satisfactory overall. I would like to add that the main improvements approved by the committee all seek the same thing: to strengthen checking, inspection and monitoring measures throughout the transfusion chain, in order to protect donors from human error and to protect recipients against the risks of being exposed to donated blood that may be contaminated.
Having said that, patients now face another threat: the shortage of plasma and plasma derivates in the Union. That is why the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is opposed to the absolute and immediate obligation to make donation non-remunerated, that is to Amendments Nos 55 and 56, which, I would like to say in passing, also seem to run totally counter to the whole principle of subsidiarity. I say that first of all because non-remunerated donation is in no way under threat. We have never questioned the principle of voluntary donation or the essential social role played by voluntary donors. So it is not the principle of non-remunerated donation that is being questioned, but compulsory non-remuneration.
I am also and above all opposed to these amendments because they totally disregard the concerns of patients. We consulted in depth patients who are particularly concerned, and here I am using a euphemism, about the ever-increasing dependence on imports of American plasma in particular. This especially applies to haemophiliacs who remember that non-remuneration in no way protected them against viral contamination. We do not want the better to be the enemy of the good here. It is clear and it is vital that blood should not be a source of profit. This is repeated in several places, in several recitals, in the compromise amendment which we have tabled together with the PPE Group. This is an objective imposed on the Member States in accordance with the conditions and timing laid down in Amendment No 75, but making non-remuneration an absolute condition for donating blood would be a disaster for patients, and I mean patients and not industrialists, Mr Lund, because we have had in-depth discussions with haemophiliacs in particular.
What really counts here is that blood should be of the highest quality and the directive ensures this, but what is the use of ensuring quality and safety if the blood is not available? Let me remind you that Europe has 7 million blood donors out of a population of 360 million.
In conclusion, Mr President, that is why I am calling on all the political groups to support this compromise amendment which ensures free access on the part of patients to blood and to medicinal products, both of which each day save thousands of lives."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples